From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FAF43F54; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:52:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D0D4025C; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:52:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oo1-f42.google.com (mail-oo1-f42.google.com [209.85.161.42]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2485400EF for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:52:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oo1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5af2358c7e5so3262476eaf.0 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:52:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1714485136; x=1715089936; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1o4+Gi8NK7tOBPr8mhmkHEBAQWVkLh6xd6igANAHcDQ=; b=Qo3QLeYtN5CwlS9Bqi7zUhHxylT7C0vciHuL8VUULIjw5I/C+ufc2BAbLh43Ta8M3c KsUVtCQGEHbiufjdZvZuMs47q2fGALpBr8YV65cI3ftZ/mOl5r+CmsgehjWTyyr4jESV hHzb1gibJKK5FrNSwRHC7KlPCTes+aXD75aBc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714485136; x=1715089936; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=1o4+Gi8NK7tOBPr8mhmkHEBAQWVkLh6xd6igANAHcDQ=; b=R2vjnUUIwt7nf304gDEWxLRtXe2gSelnB99FMzYZJDIVNrQyJ3a1/rCy1Jp7U60A41 dv2PqjvY2bdvJSThBCzOywn1DE97xEsG3ugCGvtn65lR4396qxYRU1npejdGnO5ngDfx jJ7UmxlpQ7i5LbE5UQRszFRh+BDXOMJPXX5Iqu/qoCZii8aJXUHjWGFTdySe1fbpNu3a I7QnAWvxzUjzEhlQrI4Y12LTNHSuViqg7EiiIwt14kOP5AmBf2j3IIJLXMYFWDDyuu3H 9fu0TWE1pBuMhQLM8nvWqE8E/pVDM9sjo3hclvWm907eIE8UydKv2/2rVvQuOjryjrVj ixAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzLGvDzxiXAe9TRl+ANRZx89NDOEzceCad+rFPHk5EyhLmQtnQ1 B2jeZYVIBK9zQvQNxRtbGG6jhWpaNwQUSgoGkbSMwTlegETolItfibhCo9J4E9NRWSkftxp4dN6 Q3RQwMu8VVheC3Wl3OwyBwIczoYcXRG7QecgaPg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFCfO/cdU+W5k79P/ohb0+RFTMvZbEcb4vlCVxh2YOtxwcSeSmhbKnGK021dmN+jyT8g4BLhdLvQXo1363WcNg= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:c201:0:b0:5af:c6bb:319 with SMTP id z1-20020a4ac201000000b005afc6bb0319mr2413023oop.0.1714485135988; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:52:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4d5510d1-bdc6-43de-abbc-749eaa3c75a4@lysator.liu.se> In-Reply-To: <4d5510d1-bdc6-43de-abbc-749eaa3c75a4@lysator.liu.se> From: Patrick Robb Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:52:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Run unit tests with C++ too To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=C3=B6nnblom?= Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=C3=B6nnblom?= , "Richardson, Bruce" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000080f518061750ad20" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --00000000000080f518061750ad20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:46=E2=80=AFAM Mattias R=C3=B6nnblom wrote: > It would be great if the unit test suite (app/test/*) was compiled (and > run) using a C++ (C++11) compiler as well. At least, if such is available= . > Sure, the UNH Lab can try this. > > With the current state of affairs, header file macros or functions are > not verified to be functional (or even valid) C++. > > "C is a subset of C++", which was never true, is becoming less and less s= o. > > If all unit tests aren't valid C++, maybe one could start with an "opt > in" model. > Okay, so basically run the fast-test suite, record all that don't pass, submit a bugzilla ticket stating which unit tests are not valid on a certain c++ compiler, then bring CI Testing online using the valid subset of fast-tests. This should work. > > A drawback of this is that the unit tests need to be both valid C and > valid C++. > --00000000000080f518061750ad20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:46=E2=80=AF= AM Mattias R=C3=B6nnblom <hofor= s@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
It would be great if the unit test suite (app/test/*) was c= ompiled (and
run) using a C++ (C++11) compiler as well. At least, if such is available.<= br>

Sure, the UNH Lab can try this.
=C2=A0

With the current state of affairs, header file macros or functions are
not verified to be functional (or even valid) C++.

"C is a subset of C++", which was never true, is becoming less an= d less so.

If all unit tests aren't valid C++, maybe one could start with an "= ;opt
in" model.

Okay, so basically run = the fast-test suite, record all that don't pass, submit a bugzilla tick= et stating which unit tests are not valid on a certain c++ compiler, then b= ring CI Testing online using the valid subset of fast-tests. This should=C2= =A0work.=C2=A0
=C2=A0

A drawback of this is that the unit tests need to be both valid C and
valid C++.
--00000000000080f518061750ad20--